A new shot has been fired in the battle for legal liberalisation in India. Madras-based Advocate AK Balaji, acting for the shadowy Association of Indian Lawyers, issued a writ in mid-March 2010. The scale of the petition is considerable. It names 31 leading foreign law firms, including all of the UK’s magic circle. Most intriguingly, it names legal process outsourcer, Integreon, as one of the defendants.
The writ alleges that Integreon, along with the 31 firms, has been practicing law in India in contravention of the Advocates Act 1961, as well as a host of immigration and tax rules.
The decision taken by the Bombay High Court in December 2009 has made Western observers cynical about the prospect of liberalisation. The landmark ruling confirmed that any kind of practice of law by foreign firms in India is illegal. It concluded that document drafting and review, transactional advice, negotiations, and the giving of general legal opinions were also included under the ban. Precisely how far this judgment can be extended remains an open-ended question.
A leaked document purporting to be Mr Balaji’s writ has been widely circulated on-line. It explicitly mentions LPO operations. The purported affidavit contends that international law firms have been setting up Indian offices under the guise of LPOs. Whilst this may not be true, the accusation that foreign-owned LPOs are actually doing legal work will test the limits of the Bombay High Court decision.
LPOs, however, maintain that they are not actually doing legal work, but instead provide process-driven support services along paralegal lines. Typically, they are contracted to work for either an in-house department or a foreign law firm, in a supportive but not advisory capacity. Whilst LPO work sits on the border between administrative and actual legal advice, it has traditionally been pictured as safely on the non-legal side.
Integreon’s CEO Liam Brown expressed confusion about being named in the writ. “We were surprised to hear that our range of LPO services, such as document review, e-discovery, contract management and other legal support services could be confused with the practice of law”, he said. Clarifying further, the statement says that Integreon “collaborate closely with its clients to segregate complex legal tasks from those that can be lawfully outsourced.”
Mr Balaji wishes to frame his case in terms of a battle for the identity of law in India. Should lawyers be profit-driven corporate buccaneers or noble professionals working for the good of society? Is legal work a commodity or a social good?
Scratch beneath the surface and the motivations to oppose liberalisation are revealed. The most powerful campaigners against liberalisation have been senior Indian lawyers seeking to maintain their oligopoly.
Contrary to Mr Balaji’s statements in the press, his own writ argues that as well as foreign firms contravening the letter of the law, they are also at fault for the lack of reciprocity of access for Indian lawyers to Western legal markets. This would also suggest a greater degree of economic reasoning at play.
The extension of the anti-liberalisation campaign to include foreign-owned LPOs is a development that is at variance with India’s economic development. The business process outsourcing industry of which LPO is an off-shoot has largely driven the growth of India’s economy in the last ten years. LPO itself is predicted to be worth nearly a $1 billion in 2015. In fact, many top Indian law firms have their own stakes in the LPO industry. Mr Balaji’s inclusion of Integreon in his writ is out of sync with India’s future as the global hub for service industries.
LEGAL PROCESS OUTSOURCING
LPO accused of providing legal advice
A new shot has been fired in the battle for legal liberalisation in India. Madras-based Advocate AK Balaji, acting for the shadowy Association of Indian Lawyers, issued a writ in mid-March 2010. The scale of the petition is considerable. It names 31 leading foreign law firms, including all of the UK’s magic circle. Most intriguingly, it names legal process outsourcer, Integreon, as one of the defendants.
The writ alleges that Integreon, along with the 31 firms, has been practicing law in India in contravention of the Advocates Act 1961, as well as a host of immigration and tax rules.
The decision taken by the Bombay High Court in December 2009 has made Western observers cynical about the prospect of liberalisation. The landmark ruling confirmed that any kind of practice of law by foreign firms in India is illegal. It concluded that document drafting and review, transactional advice, negotiations, and the giving of general legal opinions were also included under the ban. Precisely how far this judgment can be extended remains an open-ended question.
A leaked document purporting to be Mr Balaji’s writ has been widely circulated on-line. It explicitly mentions LPO operations. The purported affidavit contends that international law firms have been setting up Indian offices under the guise of LPOs. Whilst this may not be true, the accusation that foreign-owned LPOs are actually doing legal work will test the limits of the Bombay High Court decision.
LPOs, however, maintain that they are not actually doing legal work, but instead provide process-driven support services along paralegal lines. Typically, they are contracted to work for either an in-house department or a foreign law firm, in a supportive but not advisory capacity. Whilst LPO work sits on the border between administrative and actual legal advice, it has traditionally been pictured as safely on the non-legal side.
Integreon’s CEO Liam Brown expressed confusion about being named in the writ. “We were surprised to hear that our range of LPO services, such as document review, e-discovery, contract management and other legal support services could be confused with the practice of law”, he said. Clarifying further, the statement says that Integreon “collaborate closely with its clients to segregate complex legal tasks from those that can be lawfully outsourced.”
Mr Balaji wishes to frame his case in terms of a battle for the identity of law in India. Should lawyers be profit-driven corporate buccaneers or noble professionals working for the good of society? Is legal work a commodity or a social good?
Scratch beneath the surface and the motivations to oppose liberalisation are revealed. The most powerful campaigners against liberalisation have been senior Indian lawyers seeking to maintain their oligopoly.
Contrary to Mr Balaji’s statements in the press, his own writ argues that as well as foreign firms contravening the letter of the law, they are also at fault for the lack of reciprocity of access for Indian lawyers to Western legal markets. This would also suggest a greater degree of economic reasoning at play.
The extension of the anti-liberalisation campaign to include foreign-owned LPOs is a development that is at variance with India’s economic development. The business process outsourcing industry of which LPO is an off-shoot has largely driven the growth of India’s economy in the last ten years. LPO itself is predicted to be worth nearly a $1 billion in 2015. In fact, many top Indian law firms have their own stakes in the LPO industry. Mr Balaji’s inclusion of Integreon in his writ is out of sync with India’s future as the global hub for service industries.
« Back to Comments